53

that is read in passing in the Apostle, “from him and through him and to him are all things; to him be glory forever. Amen”». For that the Trisagion is said not only of the Son, but of the Holy Trinity, the divine and holy Athanasius is a witness, and Basil and Gregory, and the whole choir of the God-bearing Fathers, that through the threefold holiness the holy Seraphim indicate to us the three hypostases of the super-essential Godhead. And through the one Lordship they make known the one essence and kingdom of the divine Trinity. Gregory the Theologian at least says: “Thus indeed the holy of holies, which is veiled even by the Seraphim and is glorified with three sanctifications that come together into one lordship and divinity; which has also been philosophized most beautifully and loftily by another before us”. Those who composed the ecclesiastical history say that while the people in Constantinople were holding a litany on account of some divinely-sent threat that occurred under Archbishop Proclus, a child from the people was snatched up and was thus initiated by some angelic teaching into the Trisagion hymn: “Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us,” and when the child returned and announced what he had been initiated into, the whole multitude sang the hymn and thus the threat ceased. And it is handed down that this Trisagion hymn was sung thus in the holy and great fourth ecumenical council, I mean the one in Chalcedon; for so it is reported in the acts of the same holy council. It is therefore truly a laughing-stock and a trifle that the Trisagion song, initiated by angels and confirmed by the cessation of the affliction, and ratified and confirmed by the council of so many holy fathers, and formerly sung by the Seraphim as revealing the tri-hypostatic Godhead, should be, as it were, trampled upon by the irrational conceit of the fuller and supposedly corrected, as if surpassing the Seraphim. But O, the audacity, not to say the foolishness. But we say thus, even if demons should burst asunder: “Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us.” 55 Concerning nature considered in species and in the individual, and the difference, union, and incarnation, and how “the one incarnate nature of God the Word” is to be understood Nature is understood either by pure contemplation (for it does not subsist in itself), or it is common in all like-formed hypostases, uniting them, and is called nature considered in the species, or it is the same as a whole with the assumption of accidents in one hypostasis, and is called nature considered in the individual. God the Word, therefore, having become incarnate, assumed neither the nature understood by pure contemplation (for this is not incarnation, but a deception and a phantom of incarnation), nor that which is considered in the species (for he did not assume all the hypostases), but that which is in the individual, being the same as the species (for he assumed a first-fruit of our lump), not subsisting in itself and having become an individual previously and thus assumed by him, but existing in his hypostasis. For the hypostasis of God the Word itself became a hypostasis for the flesh, and in this sense “the Word became flesh,” that is, without change, and the flesh became Word, immutably, and God became man; for the Word is God, and the man is God because of the hypostatic union. It is therefore the same thing to speak of the nature of the Word and the nature in the individual; for it signifies neither the individual, that is, the hypostasis, properly and alone, nor the commonality of the hypostases, but the common nature considered and examined in one of the hypostases. Union, therefore, is one thing, and incarnation is another; for union signifies only the conjunction, but to what the conjunction has been made, it no longer does. But incarnation, which is the same as saying inhumanation, signifies the conjunction with flesh, that is, with man, just as ignition signifies the union with fire. The blessed Cyril himself, therefore, in his second letter to Successus, interpreting “one incarnate nature of God the Word,” says thus: “For if, having said one nature of the Word,

53

παρέργως ἐκεῖνο ἀναγινώσκεται παρὰ τῷ ἀποστόλῳ, τὸ «ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ δι' αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα· αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Ἀμήν»». Ὅτι γὰρ οὐκ εἰς τὸν υἱὸν μόνον λέλεκται τὸ τρισάγιον, ἀλλ' εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν τριάδα, μάρτυς ὁ θεῖος καὶ ἱερὸς Ἀθανάσιος Βασίλειός τε καὶ Γρηγόριος καὶ πᾶς ὁ τῶν θεοφόρων πατέρων χορός, ὅτιπερ διὰ τῆς τρισσῆς ἁγιότητος τὰς τρεῖς τῆς ὑπερουσίου θεότητος ὑποστάσεις τὰ ἅγια Σεραφὶμ ἡμῖν ὑπεμφαίνουσι. ∆ιὰ δὲ τῆς μιᾶς κυριότητος τὴν μίαν τῆς θεαρχικῆς τριάδος οὐσίαν τε καὶ βασιλείαν γνωρίζουσι. Φησὶ γοῦν ὁ θεολόγος Γρηγόριος· «Οὕτω μὲν οὖν τὰ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων, ἃ καὶ τοῖς Σεραφὶμ συγκαλύπτεται καὶ δοξάζεται τρισὶν ἁγιασμοῖς εἰς μίαν συνιοῦσι κυριότητα καὶ θεότητα· ὃ καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ πρὸ ἡμῶν πεφιλοσόφηται κάλλιστά τε καὶ ὑψηλότατα». Φασὶ μὲν οὖν οἱ τὴν ἐκκλησιαστικὴν ἱστορίαν συντάξαντες λιτανεύοντος τοῦ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει λαοῦ διά τινα θεήλατον ἀπειλὴν ἐπὶ Πρόκλου τοῦ ἀρχιεπισκόπου γεγενημένην, ἀφαρπαχθῆναι παιδίον τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ οὕτω μυηθῆναι ὑπ' ἀγγελικῆς τινος διδασκαλίας τὸν τρισάγιον ὕμνον «ἅγιος ὁ θεός, ἅγιος ἰσχυρός, ἅγιος ἀθάνατος, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς» καὶ αὖθις ἐπιστραφέντος τοῦ παιδίου καὶ τὸ μυηθὲν ἀπαγγείλαντος ᾆσαι τὸν ὕμνον ἅπαν τὸ πλῆθος καὶ οὕτω κοπάσαι τὴν ἀπειλήν. Καὶ ἐν τῇ ἁγίᾳ δὲ καὶ μεγάλῃ τῇ οἰκουμενικῇ τετάρτῃ συνόδῳ, τῇ ἐν Χαλκηδόνι φημί, οὕτως ὑμνηθῆναι ὁ τρισάγιος οὗτος ὕμνος παραδέδοται· οὕτω γὰρ τοῖς πεπραγμένοις τῆς αὐτῆς ἁγίας συνόδου ἐμφέρεται. Γέλως οὖν ὄντως καὶ παίγνιον τὴν δι' ἀγγέλων μυηθεῖσαν καὶ τῇ τῆς ἐπαγωγῆς λήξει πιστωθεῖσαν καὶ τῇ τοσῶνδε ἁγίων πατέρων συνόδῳ κυρωθεῖσαν καὶ βεβαιωθεῖσαν καὶ πρότερον ὑπὸ τῶν Σεραφὶμ ὑμνηθεῖσαν τὴν τρισάγιον ᾠδὴν ὡς τῆς τρισυποστάτου θεότητος ἐμφαντικὴν τῇ τοῦ κναφέως οἷον καταπατηθῆναι ἀλόγῳ οἰήσει καὶ δῆθεν διορθωθῆναι ὡς τῶν Σεραφὶμ ὑπερβάλλοντος. Ἀλλ' ὢ τῆς αὐθαδείας, ἵνα μὴ λέγω τῆς ἀνοίας. Ἡμεῖς δὲ οὕτω φαμέν, κἂν δαίμονες διαρρήγνυνται· «Ἅγιος ὁ θεός, ἅγιος ἰσχυρός, ἅγιος ἀθάνατος, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς». 55 Περὶ τῆς ἐν εἴδει καὶ ἐν ἀτόμῳ θεωρουμένης φύσεως καὶ διαφορᾶς, ἑνώσεως καὶ σαρκώσεως, καὶ πῶς ἐκληπτέον «τὴν μίαν φύσιν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένην» Ἡ φύσις ἢ ψιλῇ θεωρίᾳ κατανοεῖται (καθ' αὑτὴν γὰρ οὐχ ὑφέστηκεν), ἢ κοινῶς ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ὁμοειδέσιν ὑποστάσεσι ταύτας συνάπτουσα καὶ λέγεται ἐν τῷ εἴδει θεωρουμένη φύσις, ἢ ὁλικῶς ἡ αὐτὴ ἐν προσλήψει συμβεβηκότων ἐν μιᾷ ὑποστάσει καὶ λέγεται ἐν ἀτόμῳ θεωρουμένη φύσις. Ὁ οὖν θεὸς λόγος σαρκωθεὶς οὔτε τὴν ἐν ψιλῇ θεωρίᾳ κατανοουμένην φύσιν ἀνέλαβεν (οὐ γὰρ σάρκωσις τοῦτο, ἀλλ' ἀπάτη καὶ πλάσμα σαρκώσεως) οὔτε τὴν ἐν τῷ εἴδει θεωρουμένην (οὐ γὰρ πάσας τὰς ὑποστάσεις ἀνέλαβεν), ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐν ἀτόμῳ τὴν αὐτὴν οὖσαν τῷ εἴδει (ἀπαρχὴν γὰρ ἀνέλαβε τοῦ ἡμετέρου φυράματος), οὐ καθ' αὑτὴν ὑποστᾶσαν καὶ ἄτομον χρηματίσασαν πρότερον καὶ οὕτως ὑπ' αὐτοῦ προσληφθεῖσαν, ἀλλ' ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ ὑποστάσει ὑπάρξασαν. Αὐτὴ γὰρ ἡ ὑπόστασις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου ἐγένετο τῇ σαρκὶ ὑπόστασις, καὶ κατὰ τοῦτο «ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο», ἀτρέπτως δηλαδή, καὶ ἡ σὰρξ λόγος ἀμεταβλήτως, καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἄνθρωπος· θεὸς γὰρ ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος θεὸς διὰ τὴν καθ' ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσιν. Ταὐτὸν οὖν ἐστιν εἰπεῖν φύσιν τοῦ λόγου καὶ τὴν ἐν ἀτόμῳ φύσιν· οὔτε γὰρ τὸ ἄτομον ἤγουν τὴν ὑπόστασιν κυρίως καὶ μόνως δηλοῖ οὔτε τὸ κοινὸν τῶν ὑποστάσεων, ἀλλὰ τὴν κοινὴν φύσιν ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ὑποστάσεων θεωρουμένην καὶ ἐξεταζομένην. Ἄλλο μὲν οὖν ἐστιν ἕνωσις, καὶ ἕτερον σάρκωσις· ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἕνωσις μόνην δηλοῖ τὴν συνάφειαν, πρὸς τί δὲ γέγονεν ἡ συνάφεια, οὐκέτι. Ἡ δὲ σάρκωσις, ταὐτὸν δ' ἐστὶν εἰπεῖν καὶ ἐνανθρώπησις, τὴν πρὸς σάρκα ἤτοι πρὸς ἄνθρωπον συνάφειαν δηλοῖ, καθάπερ καὶ ἡ πύρωσις τὴν πρὸς τὸ πῦρ ἕνωσιν. Αὐτὸς μὲν οὖν ὁ μακάριος Κύριλλος ἐν τῇ πρὸς Σούκενσον δευτέρᾳ ἐπιστολῇ ἑρμηνεύων τὸ «μίαν φύσιν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένην» οὕτω φησίν· «Εἰ μὲν γὰρ μίαν εἰπόντες τοῦ λόγου φύσιν